Rasmussen Tracking Poll [Obama vs McCain]

[J. J.]

Edited to change: I believe I made a mistake. I thought you were making a snide comment of some sort. Now I think you were just reminding me that McGovern was all that I just described of Obama. I do know that, but what of it? Well, McGovern lost, and lost badly. But you'd have to admit that the electorate has changed since McGovern's day.

Or was this about NY? JJ, NY is solidly libdem in a Prexy race no matter what now. You weren't suggesting that my vote actually matters in NY, were you? I mean, that'd be lovely, but you can't really believe that.

Yes, I was reminding you that McGovern was described, more pointedly, in the terms you just said described Obama.  I think there are background things that strike at Obama's sincerity, but Ayers isn't one of them.  (And I think I actually would have liked Obama's stepfather.)

Nothing about NY, which I actually though Mondale would carry.  Since 1980, I have never predicted NY would go Republican.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

When did Republicans start concerning themselves with facts?

The only voter fraud I've heard about was from ACORN.

For the millionth time:

registration fraud != voter fraud

And ACORN were being just as defrauded as the state's election boards, arguably more so since it cost them money, while for the states it cost the just a few cents it takes to process a new voter registration for someone who'll never ever vote.

[J. J.]

When did Republicans start concerning themselves with facts?

The only voter fraud I've heard about was from ACORN.

For the millionth time:

registration fraud != voter fraud

And ACORN were being just as defrauded as the state's election boards, arguably more so since it cost them money, while for the states it cost the just a few cents it takes to process a new voter registration for someone who'll never ever vote.

Note:  BRTD favors registration fraud. 

Seriously, we look at registration numbers and you are supporting it.  ACRON doesn't have internal checks on this?

[Alcon]

Note:  BRTD favors registration fraud. 

Seriously, we look at registration numbers and you are supporting it.  ACRON doesn't have internal checks on this?

It really is important to distinguish the two.  One is a relatively minor crime, the other is a fundamental threat to democracy.

ACORN has quality control people, yes, but they're not very good.  what kind of checks do you suggest?

(ACORN does it awfully, but I want to hear what you'd consider necessary)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

When did Republicans start concerning themselves with facts?

The only voter fraud I've heard about was from ACORN.

For the millionth time:

registration fraud != voter fraud

And ACORN were being just as defrauded as the state's election boards, arguably more so since it cost them money, while for the states it cost the just a few cents it takes to process a new voter registration for someone who'll never ever vote.

Note:  BRTD favors registration fraud. 

Seriously, we look at registration numbers and you are supporting it.  ACRON doesn't have internal checks on this?

Nice straw man. I never said I supported it. It was fraud on behalf of the people committing who were in effect stealing from ACORN.

What I'm saying it's blown out of proportion. Having a few registrations for Donald Duck is not going to result in a stolen election. Alcon nailed it in the first sentence.

[J. J.]

Nice straw man. I never said I supported it. It was fraud on behalf of the people committing who were in effect stealing from ACORN.

I was joking, hence the smiling face.  This one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, where did I say "stolen election?"  I made the ACORN in reference to a troll, claiming "Voter Fraud."

[minionofmidas]

When did Republicans start concerning themselves with facts?

Do we have any left wing posters here under 1000k posts who aren't trolls?

A million posts?

The answer to States question is no.

Thank you.

[Democratic Hawk]

New Rasmussen Partisian Weight Targets [week Oct. 12-18]

Democrat 39.3% (nc)

Republican 33.0% (-0.3%)

Unaffiliated 27.7% (+0.3%)

Link

[Tender Branson]

Sunday - October 12, 2008:

Obama 51% (-1)
McCain 45% (nc)

Obama leads by fourteen percentage points among women while McCain leads by two among men. Both men lead by an 86% to 12% margin among members of their own party while Obama holds an eight point advantage among unaffiliated voters.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sunday - October 12, 2008:

Obama 51% (-1)
McCain 45% (nc)

Obama leads by fourteen percentage points among women while McCain leads by two among men. Both men lead by an 86% to 12% margin among members of their own party while Obama holds an eight point advantage among unaffiliated voters.

If the gender make-up of the electorate is the same as 2004 (women 54% men 46%) if McCain needs to get Obama below 10% and get his own number with men well-above 10%... if those numbers play out... he's screwed hard, unless men increase their numbers... assuming they aren't new Obama-voters, lol.

[Sam Spade]

Looks like Sam Spade's hunch was correct.

It's not a hunch.  I can pretty much reasonably deduct the internals of the one-day samples by examining the internals of the other one-day questions he separately releases.

[Sam Spade]

Here's the three-day daily sample update (sorry about yesterday):

			samp goes tom	samp went today
Obama	51.09%	(51.90%	50.50%	50.48%	50.87%)
McCain	45.02%	(44.56%	45.44%	45.00%	44.64%)

[Alcon]

Nice straw man. I never said I supported it. It was fraud on behalf of the people committing who were in effect stealing from ACORN.

I was joking, hence the smiling face.  This one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, where did I say "stolen election?"  I made the ACORN in reference to a troll, claiming "Voter Fraud."

I'd be interested in an answer to my question, if you get a chance.

[minionofmidas]

what kind of checks do you suggest?

This one?

[Alcon]

what kind of checks do you suggest?

This one?

[minionofmidas]

You said you wanted your question answered. You didn't quote your own question, so I requoted it for you.

[Alcon]

Oh, right, thanks

ACORN gets a lot of crap deservedly, but it's a lot better than them "cleaning" their own registration drives.  I'd much rather have Daffy Duck registered than someone real, not.  It's also generally illegal as hell to do that

[J. J.]

ACORN has quality control people, yes, but they're not very good.  what kind of checks do you suggest?

(ACORN does it awfully, but I want to hear what you'd consider necessary)

Sorry, I didn't catch the question.


One thing would be building it's own database,  i.e. when John Doe is registered at 123 Fake Street, enter it; cross check those against newer registrations and current registrations.

Develop "frequent address" checking.  If 47 people register at 123 Fake Street, it might be a good idea to check that out.

[Alcon]

ACORN has quality control people, yes, but they're not very good.  what kind of checks do you suggest?

(ACORN does it awfully, but I want to hear what you'd consider necessary)

Sorry, I didn't catch the question.


One thing would be building it's own database,  i.e. when John Doe is registered at 123 Fake Street, enter it; cross check those against newer registrations and current registrations.

Develop "frequent address" checking.  If 47 people register at 123 Fake Street, it might be a good idea to check that out.

Trouble is, it's (rightfully) illegal in a lot of jurisdictions to fail to deliver a registration form as promised.  Most jurisdictions don't make exceptions for obvious fakes.  A good example was an organization here who didn't turn in registrations made to storage places.  Trouble is, it turned out a few of them also contain residences for the owners/managers.

I agree about the frequent address checking and everything, but ACORN should file challenges, not under any circumstances fail to deliver a registration.

[J. J.]

ACORN has quality control people, yes, but they're not very good.  what kind of checks do you suggest?

(ACORN does it awfully, but I want to hear what you'd consider necessary)

Sorry, I didn't catch the question.


One thing would be building it's own database,  i.e. when John Doe is registered at 123 Fake Street, enter it; cross check those against newer registrations and current registrations.

Develop "frequent address" checking.  If 47 people register at 123 Fake Street, it might be a good idea to check that out.

Trouble is, it's (rightfully) illegal in a lot of jurisdictions to fail to deliver a registration form as promised.  Most jurisdictions don't make exceptions for obvious fakes.  A good example was an organization here who didn't turn in registrations made to storage places.  Trouble is, it turned out a few of them also contain residences for the owners/managers.

I agree about the frequent address checking and everything, but ACORN should file challenges, not under any circumstances fail to deliver a registration.

Aclon. there is a difference between "checking" something and not turning it in.  For example 123 Fake Street might be a housing project that would account for those multiple registrations.  That can be checked.

ACORN isn't the post office, and at worst that can send some (else) out to check a questionable registration.

[Alcon]

And what do you suggest they do with them if they look bad, though?  I know there's a difference between checking them and not turning them in.

Most of the fake registrations were at multiple addresses (IN, NV); homeless shelters (WA); or private residences taken from the phone book (OH, WA).

[Lunar]

The best thing they could do is stop paying their staff per-registration form and upon checking forms, if one staff member has a lot of clearly fake registration forms and fails to point them out, fire that person immediately.

Then ACORN could file them still to the registration office but with a big red flag saying look into these.  Then they would have some credibility

[Alcon]

The best thing they could do is stop paying their staff per-registration form and upon checking forms, if one staff member has a lot of clearly fake registration forms and fails to point them out, fire that person immediately.

Then ACORN could file them still to the registration office but with a big red flag saying look into these.  Then they would have some credibility

Bingo

[J. J.]

And what do you suggest they do with them if they look bad, though?  I know there's a difference between checking them and not turning them in.

1.  Return them to the addressee.

2.  Turn them in but with a questionable label.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The phone books could be check via a comparison with current registrations; if checked against a data base, the multiple addresses could be caught.

[Alcon]

1.  Return them to the addressee.

What purpose would that have, other than wasting time and testing for undeliverable addresses, which the elections department does anyway?

2.  Turn them in but with a questionable label.

Works for me; that's what an official challenged would be.

The phone books could be check via a comparison with current registrations; if checked against a data base, the multiple addresses could be caught.

Having someone else other than the phone book entry registered at an address is so ridiculously common, I don't see what purpose that would serve.